Prediction for Obama’s SOTU: Abdicate, Prevaricate and Pontificate

For those who might not quickly associate these three words, I consulted Webster’s Dictionary to confirm and clarify what I meant by them. They describe clearly how Barack Obama leads (or fails to lead).

Abdicate: to cast off; to relinquish (as sovereign power) formally

Prevaricate: to deviate from the truth

Pontificate: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way

These are the most glaring evidence of the leadership failures of President Barack Obama. They are clearly seen in his behavior in the Benghazi crisis. They were obvious in the debt ceiling negotiation last fall. If one looks closely, every important issue faced by this White House is either decided by an arrogantly dogmatic position, one long-held by Obama and his ideological yes-men, or they are notable by his practice of abdication, prevarication or pontification.

And does he ever love to pontificate — on almost anything about which he speaks. The president makes the term “leading from behind” into a glorious proclamation of a successful leadership trait, when in fact it is a tacit admission of leadership failure.

About a year ago, my co-author D. M. Lukas and I wrote a book, Hope Is NOT A Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency. In it we chronicled dozens of failings that characterize his lack of leadership experience, competence and success. In fact, Barack Obama could be called the ultimate “surfer” of leadership decision-making: he waits for a wave and then rides it for all it’s worth.

The growing dependent class in America voted him in for a second term because they knew his fall back mode: when leadership fails, give the constituents something (whether you can afford it or not) that will allow you to retain their allegiance. It doesn’t matter whether what you give them is good for them, or for the nation, if it allows you to continue to “lead from behind.”

Few people, even the boldest of journalists, loathe to call the president a liar outright. However, he has so badly bent, distorted, misused and abused the truth that trusting him at his word is impossible. His favorite approach is to abdicate the tough decisions to subordinates and see how they come out before he joins the chorus in support.

For the first four years, George W. Bush was the whipping boy of the Obama presidency, and many of us agree, Bush gave him plenty of material to use as excuses. However, many of Obama’s glaring failures (Stimulus, Solyndra, etc.) were his alone — but carried out by his Democrat party allies, or cronies, or designates.

John Mariotti is an experienced author and former senior executive, and is a contributor to The Brenner Brief. Twitter: @johnentgrp

Obama’s “imperial presidency” is now, finally starting to be reviewed and rejected by the courts — most recently his illegal recess appointments. I could go on, but my purpose was to plant those three words — a concise description of how the man elected to lead the USA operates — in your mind. You will now find it hard to ignore the repeated, numerous times you see him practice his failed brand of leadership: abdicate, prevaricate, and pontificate, and especially the latter of these.

Obama’s State of the Union message will be yet another instance of the latter two. Sadly, many will accept and believe him. Therein lies the greatest mistake of all.

Sign up for The Brenner Brief newsletter! Free subscription; unsubscribe any time. Connect with conservative, alternative media — we are “rendering the mainstream media useless” at TheBrennerBrief.com!

he is just one man among a thousand others who control the septer of power, he has those who give the marching orders, he is only there for you to focus your anger on. doesn’t make him a good guy or anything, I mean what happens if you participate in a bank robbery and all you did was drive the car? you get the same punishment as the ones who actually did the robbery and shot the guard. so he is guilty with the rest of them. for some reason I don’t understand but being in a large gang with similar goals (getting wealthy without earning it?) makes people more bolden to do stuff then in smaller groups. I wonder why? somehow by controlling the money supply bankers have managed to gain controls over the world by working with gov, and for the life of me how did they manage that without some kind of outside help (dare I say the demons?)they are just humans like you and me yet they manage to get that septer of power and most of us didn’t. makes me truly believe satan does rule the world.